|
|
Post by Hey Man on Feb 21, 2012 7:14:17 GMT -5
As Gene likes to pretend that KISS created heavy metal or that they were the heavy metal Beatles, I personally feel that KISS (or Paul Stanley mostly) - went after the wrong music crowd in the 80's.
While the band should have been getting heavier with each release after LIU - they did indeed go Bon Jovi instead. I don't care what anyone says - Paul CLEARLY was jealous of him and that band.
Ultimately KISS should have been competing with the heavier bands of the time (old and new) and not so much the glammy hair metal bands. It amazes me that Paul wanted to produce Appetite For Destruction and yet - KISS come out with Crazy Nights in the same year. Why isn't KISS releasing their own slab of destruction in 1987 - instead of music to do your Jane Fonda workout to.
As much I don't like Sonic Boom now, I probably would have loved it in 1987 or 1989. That is what they should have been doing compared to the embarrassing CN and HITS. If it was any other band, they would be laughed at - but poor production and poor songwriting almost became expected for KISS.
I will never forget the day my heart literally sank when I first heard Hide Your Heart on the radio. I literally said to myself in 1989 that KISS was done. I just couldn't believe what KISS had turned into and what they felt was acceptable to release to the public. KISS had gone off the rails big time and I do blame Paul creatively and Gene for his lack of not really caring.
Paul was so desperate to be a sex symbol in the 80's - that he was willing to compromise KISS music to do it. Because you can't have a sex symbol in the 80's - if your music is heavy and hard rocking as fuck. But be a version of Bon Jovi meets Poison and you are home free to sex symbolville.
So do you agree that KISS aimed for the wrong crowd in the 80s, when plenty of other similar bands were releasing heavier albums than KISS were or do you think that KISS needed to be more like Bon Jovi and completely unlike KISS' roots as "heavy metal" using their words or "from the street" to survive?
|
|
|
|
Post by Justlee on Feb 21, 2012 8:25:48 GMT -5
While I don't agree with KISS going in the direction of Crazy Nights, I think they were just doing what they felt they needed to do to survive. And it is debatble whether they were right or wrong...I mean as much as I despise Crazy Nights, it did go platinum. Most bands that had been around as long as them, and had as much success as they did early on were indeed slumping in sales at that point.
Oh and I don't think Paul was trying any harder to be a sex symbol than David Coverdale was in 1987....lol
|
|
|
|
Post by Hey Man on Feb 21, 2012 8:41:48 GMT -5
While I don't agree with KISS going in the direction of Crazy Nights, I think they were just doing what they felt they needed to do to survive. And it is debatble whether they were right or wrong...I mean as much as I despise Crazy Nights, it did go platinum. Most bands that had been around as long as them, and had as much success as they did early on were indeed slumping in sales at that point. Oh and I don't think Paul was trying any harder to be a sex symbol than David Coverdale was in 1987....lol We both know the Coverdale comment is complete bullshit. Find me a Coverdale picture like this:  |
|
|
|
Post by Justlee on Feb 21, 2012 8:50:07 GMT -5
Well Coverdale sure had lots of lip gloss and many pouts in those videos...it was a sign of the times. But, I was yanking your chain.....a little.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hey Man on Feb 21, 2012 8:58:03 GMT -5
Well Coverdale sure had lots of lip gloss and many pouts in those videos...it was a sign of the times. But, I was yanking your chain.....a little. Well sure he tried to sell himself in the 80's - but he wasn't sucking on his fingers or doing lame shots like Paul Stanley would happily do to present himself like Burt Reynolds did.  |
|
|
|
Post by Justlee on Feb 21, 2012 9:13:18 GMT -5
Ok, I got it...you love David Coverdale and hate Paul Stanley.
Back on topic....i think KISS were trying to survive. Many older bands were slumping in 1987. Take AC/DC, they weren't lighting up the charts at that time. KISS has always changed their sound every so often....sometimes not for the good. But Crazy Nights did indeed go platinum....so who's to say they made the wrong choice. I don't like it, but some sure did.
And as for Paul...he has always done the sex symbol thing....that was his thing from the beginning.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ack on Feb 21, 2012 9:58:10 GMT -5
While I don't agree with KISS going in the direction of Crazy Nights, I think they were just doing what they felt they needed to do to survive. And it is debatble whether they were right or wrong...I mean as much as I despise Crazy Nights, it did go platinum. Most bands that had been around as long as them, and had as much success as they did early on were indeed slumping in sales at that point. Oh and I don't think Paul was trying any harder to be a sex symbol than David Coverdale was in 1987....lol Agree. It was purely survival, IMO. Creatively, I would've much preferred they stayed in the Creatures/LIU vein. But by Animalize, Gene was barely a creative force in the band and Paul had to carry the load. Paul looked around at what was selling at that time (just as he did with IWMFLY in '79) and decided that the easiest crowd do sell to was the pop metal folks, IMO. It kept them afloat and gave them platinum albums even though I personally consider 84-90 the lowest point of their career musically. |
|
Kissthat
Full Member
KISS 1973-2014
Posts: 197
|
Post by Kissthat on Feb 21, 2012 10:37:20 GMT -5
The funny thing is, as much as Crazy Nights sounds like pop hair metal (it is) ,it still fits with the times. Unmasked is the catalog misstep .In hindsight they look like complete dumbasses for releasing it. Let's see in1980 we have Unmasked,Back in Black, Iron Maiden, On Through The Night and Ace of Spades just to name a few. What most consider the rebirth of hard rock and we have a pop disco album from KISS. Like I said at least Crazy Nights was a sign of the times.And while some don't like Animalize or Asylum,I still believe Crazy Nights would have been better with Paul producing. KISS knew what they were getting both times, Unmasked sounds like a Vinnie Poncia produced album and Crazy Nights sounds like a Ron Nevison produced album.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hey Man on Feb 21, 2012 11:13:59 GMT -5
The funny thing is, as much as Crazy Nights sounds like pop hair metal (it is) ,it still fits with the times. Unmasked is the catalog misstep .In hindsight they look like complete dumbasses for releasing it. Let's see in1980 we have Unmasked,Back in Black, Iron Maiden, On Through The Night and Ace of Spades just to name a few. What most consider the rebirth of hard rock and we have a pop disco album from KISS. Like I said at least Crazy Nights was a sign of the times.And while some don't like Animalize or Asylum,I still believe Crazy Nights would have been better with Paul producing. KISS knew what they were getting both times, Unmasked sounds like a Vinnie Poncia produced album and Crazy Nights sounds like a Ron Nevison produced album. Maybe in 1985 like Heart, but many bands released heavier albums in 1987 - Whitesnake, Aerosmith, Guns N' Roses, etc. KISS are always years behind the times. |
|
|
|
Post by B5Erik on Feb 21, 2012 11:24:01 GMT -5
The problem KISS had in the 80's was that up until Apetite For Destruction hit it big in late '87 raw, 70's style Rock was out of favor. It was all the slicker, more modern sounding stuff that was selling from about '82 to that point. KISS was just adapting.
They were never going to fit in as a full on Metal band, so they went the other way and went POP Metal. Too far towards Pop Metal? Yeah, definitely, but they went where they had to go. Asylum was the right style, but Mercury failed to release, "Who Wants To Be Lonely," as a single. That was a hit that never got released. After that Paul believed that he had to go even further towards Pop Metal and hired Ron Nevison. Biggest mistake of his career as that album alienated the core KISS fanbase. They never won all of those fans back - especially the new fans that they had developed from Creatures through Asylum. Those fans liked the heavier stuff, and on Crazy Nights Paul basically gave them a big middle finger.
Had KISS come out with another album like Asylum (with better songs from Gene) in 1987 they would have done better. And an album like Revenge in 1989 would have hit fairly big, too. KISS were always just behind the curve, and that hurt them in the last half of the 80's, which led to their struggles in the early 90's.
|
|
|
|
Post by Justlee on Feb 21, 2012 11:51:51 GMT -5
The funny thing is, as much as Crazy Nights sounds like pop hair metal (it is) ,it still fits with the times. Unmasked is the catalog misstep .In hindsight they look like complete dumbasses for releasing it. Let's see in1980 we have Unmasked,Back in Black, Iron Maiden, On Through The Night and Ace of Spades just to name a few. What most consider the rebirth of hard rock and we have a pop disco album from KISS. Like I said at least Crazy Nights was a sign of the times.And while some don't like Animalize or Asylum,I still believe Crazy Nights would have been better with Paul producing. KISS knew what they were getting both times, Unmasked sounds like a Vinnie Poncia produced album and Crazy Nights sounds like a Ron Nevison produced album. Maybe in 1985 like Heart, but many bands released heavier albums in 1987 - Whitesnake, Aerosmith, Guns N' Roses, etc. KISS are always years behind the times. Aerosmith??? Permanent Vacation was heavy???. That is the start of the cookie cutter pop albums by Aerosmith. Whitesnake was just breaking here for the most part...I don't consider them to be successful from the 70s still trying to be relevant...they were trying hard to break. And of course, Guns just got started. So really I don't even consider your examples. Now, name some bands that were successful in the 70s still trying to survive that did a heavy album that was successful in 1987. |
|
Kissthat
Full Member
KISS 1973-2014
Posts: 197
|
Post by Kissthat on Feb 21, 2012 11:52:10 GMT -5
The funny thing is, as much as Crazy Nights sounds like pop hair metal (it is) ,it still fits with the times. Unmasked is the catalog misstep .In hindsight they look like complete dumbasses for releasing it. Let's see in1980 we have Unmasked,Back in Black, Iron Maiden, On Through The Night and Ace of Spades just to name a few. What most consider the rebirth of hard rock and we have a pop disco album from KISS. Like I said at least Crazy Nights was a sign of the times.And while some don't like Animalize or Asylum,I still believe Crazy Nights would have been better with Paul producing. KISS knew what they were getting both times, Unmasked sounds like a Vinnie Poncia produced album and Crazy Nights sounds like a Ron Nevison produced album. Maybe in 1985 like Heart, but many bands released heavier albums in 1987 - Whitesnake, Aerosmith, Guns N' Roses, etc. KISS are always years behind the times. Even you as a Whitesnake fan have to admit they went light. While the self titled album lit up the charts and MTV it's no Slide It.In . And Aerosmith had to hire Paul's buddy to write a hit. Permanent Vacation (while I've always liked it) survived on Vallance and Child songs. Where have those names popped up before they were the song doctor darlings of the 80's?.Guns N Roses Appetite is one of those once in a decade albums that not even they could match again. |
|
|
|
Post by Hey Man on Feb 21, 2012 11:57:17 GMT -5
Maybe in 1985 like Heart, but many bands released heavier albums in 1987 - Whitesnake, Aerosmith, Guns N' Roses, etc. KISS are always years behind the times. Aerosmith??? Permanent Vacation was heavy???. That is the start of the cookie cutter pop albums by Aerosmith. Whitesnake was just breaking here for the most part...I don't consider them to be successful from the 70s still trying to be relevant...they were trying hard to break. And of course, Guns just got started. So really I don't even consider your examples. Now, name some bands that were successful in the 70s still trying to survive that did a heavy album that was successful in 1987. You are talking about a different thing here. PV may be commercial or sell out Aerosmith - but that album is Metallica compared to what Nevison did with CN. Big difference between album openers Heart's Done Time and Crazy, Crazy Nights. |
|
|
|
Post by Hey Man on Feb 21, 2012 11:59:57 GMT -5
Maybe in 1985 like Heart, but many bands released heavier albums in 1987 - Whitesnake, Aerosmith, Guns N' Roses, etc. KISS are always years behind the times. Even you as a Whitesnake fan have to admit they went light. While the self titled album lit up the charts and MTV it's no Slide It.In . And Aerosmith had to hire Paul's buddy to write a hit. Permanent Vacation (while I've always liked it) survived on Vallance and Child songs. Where have those names popped up before they were the song doctor darlings of the 80's?.Guns N Roses Appetite is one of those once in a decade albums that not even they could match again. Crying In The Rain and Still Of The Night are heavy as fuck for a band like Whitesnake. Yes the band became more commercial with the ballads and less bluesy - but 1987 as a whole is a heavy album in terms of commercial hard rock. |
|
|
|
Post by Vandelay Industries on Feb 21, 2012 12:03:35 GMT -5
the problem wasn't that kiss were chasing trends (although that in itself IS a problem IMO), but they wasted so much time overanalyzing the trends, when they'd finally jump on the bandwagon it was usually 2-3 years too late. if you look at everything from 'unmasked' and onward, more often than not the albums would've been right at home had they been released a couple of years sooner....instead, they'd get released on the tail-end of ________ (insert movement of the day), when the shelf life was expired & starting to yield a foul odor....
|
|
|
|
Post by Justlee on Feb 21, 2012 13:11:46 GMT -5
Well, Crazy Nights went platinum. Do you really think if they had made a heavier record they would've sold more??? I dont.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hey Man on Feb 21, 2012 13:17:04 GMT -5
Well, Crazy Nights went platinum. Do you really think if they had made a heavier record they would've sold more??? I dont. Sold more - maybe not. Sold as well - absolutely and they would be able to hold their head high that they made a kick ass album and not some embarrassing syrupy piece of shit that they really didn't need as part of the KISS discography. |
|
|
|
Post by Justlee on Feb 21, 2012 13:36:50 GMT -5
Well, Crazy Nights went platinum. Do you really think if they had made a heavier record they would've sold more??? I dont. Sold more - maybe not. Sold as well - absolutely and they would be able to hold their head high that they made a kick ass album and not some embarrassing syrupy piece of shit that they really didn't need as part of the KISS discography. Well, I don't think Paul and Gene aren't holding their heads high....its all about money and fame to them....it always has been and always will be. |
|
|
|
Post by Hey Man on Feb 21, 2012 13:41:55 GMT -5
Sold more - maybe not. Sold as well - absolutely and they would be able to hold their head high that they made a kick ass album and not some embarrassing syrupy piece of shit that they really didn't need as part of the KISS discography. Well, I don't think Paul and Gene aren't holding their heads high....its all about money and fame to them....it always has been and always will be. I know and that's what I hate about KISS - they NEVER took album making seriously. |
|
|
|
Post by Ack on Feb 21, 2012 13:51:07 GMT -5
Well, I don't think Paul and Gene aren't holding their heads high....its all about money and fame to them....it always has been and always will be. I know and that's what I hate about KISS - they NEVER took album making seriously. And when they do, it's always great. But it doesn't sell so they abandon being serious musicians in order to chase sales. It's a shame. When they get right down to it and work, they produce stellar material. |
|
|
|
Post by Hey Man on Feb 21, 2012 14:00:22 GMT -5
I know and that's what I hate about KISS - they NEVER took album making seriously. And when they do, it's always great. But it doesn't sell so they abandon being serious musicians in order to chase sales. It's a shame. When they get right down to it and work, they produce stellar material. As much as people love KISS - they could have been so much better than they are if they just made the effort and worked with people that could get the absolute best out of them. Wasted potential in my opinion. |
|
|
|
Post by Ack on Feb 21, 2012 14:14:18 GMT -5
And when they do, it's always great. But it doesn't sell so they abandon being serious musicians in order to chase sales. It's a shame. When they get right down to it and work, they produce stellar material. As much as people love KISS - they could have been so much better than they are if they just made the effort and worked with people that could get the absolute best out of them. Wasted potential in my opinion. They were always at their best when they had somebody putting a foot in their ass and had somebody to challenge them in some way. When left to their own devices, they tend to be lazy, IMO. I'd love for them to work with a guy like Brendan O'Brien. |
|
|
|
Post by Hey Man on Feb 21, 2012 14:16:53 GMT -5
As much as people love KISS - they could have been so much better than they are if they just made the effort and worked with people that could get the absolute best out of them. Wasted potential in my opinion. They were always at their best when they had somebody putting a foot in their ass and had somebody to challenge them in some way. When left to their own devices, they tend to be lazy, IMO. I'd love for them to work with a guy like Brendan O'Brien. Absolutely with O'Brien. |
|
|
|
Post by Vandelay Industries on Feb 21, 2012 14:44:44 GMT -5
Well, Crazy Nights went platinum. Do you really think if they had made a heavier record they would've sold more??? I dont. it might not have sold more, but it wouldn't have hurt in terms of putting a few more asses in the seats.... |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 21, 2012 15:08:15 GMT -5
Maybe in 1985 like Heart, but many bands released heavier albums in 1987 - Whitesnake, Aerosmith, Guns N' Roses, etc. KISS are always years behind the times. Aerosmith??? Permanent Vacation was heavy???. That is the start of the cookie cutter pop albums by Aerosmith. Whitesnake was just breaking here for the most part...I don't consider them to be successful from the 70s still trying to be relevant...they were trying hard to break. And of course, Guns just got started. So really I don't even consider your examples. Now, name some bands that were successful in the 70s still trying to survive that did a heavy album that was successful in 1987. I have to agree with JustLee here. What Kiss did with Crazy Nights was on trend with what other bands from the 70s were doing poppy hard rock albums. It may not have worked but it was in the same vein as everyone else. |
|
|
|
Post by Hey Man on Feb 21, 2012 15:25:42 GMT -5
Aerosmith??? Permanent Vacation was heavy???. That is the start of the cookie cutter pop albums by Aerosmith. Whitesnake was just breaking here for the most part...I don't consider them to be successful from the 70s still trying to be relevant...they were trying hard to break. And of course, Guns just got started. So really I don't even consider your examples. Now, name some bands that were successful in the 70s still trying to survive that did a heavy album that was successful in 1987. I have to agree with JustLee here. What Kiss did with Crazy Nights was on trend with what other bands from the 70s were doing poppy hard rock albums. It may not have worked but it was in the same vein as everyone else. But KISS took it to a whole other AWFUL level. Big difference between Bruce Fairbairn's production with Aerosmith and Ron Nevison with Crazy Nights. Not too mention Bang Bang You. Aerosmith still rocked even as they were selling out. Nothing rocks on CN. |
|
|
|
Post by Ack on Feb 21, 2012 15:27:27 GMT -5
I have to agree with JustLee here. What Kiss did with Crazy Nights was on trend with what other bands from the 70s were doing poppy hard rock albums. It may not have worked but it was in the same vein as everyone else. I'm your turbo lover... ;D I've always described Turbo as Priest's Crazy Nights. |
|
|
|
Post by Justlee on Feb 21, 2012 15:56:05 GMT -5
I'm your turbo lover... ;D I've always described Turbo as Priest's Crazy Nights. No doubt....terrible albums both. |
|
|
|
Post by Justlee on Feb 21, 2012 15:57:19 GMT -5
I have to agree with JustLee here. What Kiss did with Crazy Nights was on trend with what other bands from the 70s were doing poppy hard rock albums. It may not have worked but it was in the same vein as everyone else. But KISS took it to a whole other AWFUL level. Big difference between Bruce Fairbairn's production with Aerosmith and Ron Nevison with Crazy Nights. Not too mention Bang Bang You. Aerosmith still rocked even as they were selling out. Nothing rocks on CN. I don't know....I can't really get my arms around either. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 21, 2012 16:12:18 GMT -5
All I know is that I thoroughly enjoyed Kiss during the 80's. Would I have liked a heavy sound? Sure, but as far as gaining them more credibility, that was never a goal for me. Back then, as it is now, I just don't care about the credibility of the catalogue or how it looks to other people. I enjoy it. Nothing else really matters.
|
|
